January 28, 2012

"A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it's a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn't matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not."...

"Cynthia did not put adequate thought into the ramifications of her words, and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force them into some ex-gay camp while she's off drinking cocktails at fancy parties," [said Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen.] "When people say it's a choice, they are green-lighting an enormous amount of abuse because if it's a choice, people will try to influence and guide young people to what they perceive as the right choice."

Does he want truth to win out or something more like good policy or political pragmatism?

By the way, I vividly remember back around 1990, the progressive gay-rights-type people I knew were intent upon portraying sexual orientation as a choice. I won't name the famous lefty who snapped at me for entertaining the notion that homosexuality might have a biological basis: If it exists at the biological level, it will be perceived as a disease and people will try to cure it. That was really the same point as Besen's, oddly enough, in that it was about acceptance as opposed to treatment.

Daddy, is Happy Toast gay? What is gay, Liam? It's when people like sex. Then yes, Happy Toast is probably gay.

Here is the story of Happy Toast who drew a cartoon. Another gent printed the picture and presented it to two children celebrating a birthday at a restaurant. The children laughed so hard they could not control themselves. They fell about the place as children sometimes do.

But the children's laughter was contagious. That something so stupid is so funny to children is itself very funny but the attention that it drew, the waitress, the other customers, is hilarious. This is the cartoon that caused the kids to lose it.

So you see, according to Liam if you like sex then you're probably gay.

I've seen this same sort of assertion a few times at radical feminist blogs.

Basically it feeds into lesbian power fantasies of converting hot straight women into the fold. Radfem dogma is pretty much nothing but lesbian power fantasy with a layer of victimology to try and disguise it.

It's a matter of percentages. And, it's INHERITED. (Awhile back I remember reading that women carry the gene forward on their mitochondria. It's inherited from the mother. Even if the mom is heterosexual.)

It also doesn't matter. Homosexuality is like genius. Only a few are "chosen." Everybody else's genetics remains ordinary.

Why are gays attacked? I have no idea.

We're also watching marriages fall apart. Lots of people cohabitate without getting married. There really is no accurate way to gather up statistics that reflect individuality.

Probably, what's more surprising is how early lots of kids KNOW if they're interested in the opposite sex, or not.

And, what is EVIL is INTOLERANCE. Once you get over that hurdle,you can ignore all the sign-carrying lunatics.

It really dismays me that so many men fetishize lesbians. Sure, it's pleasant to watch girl-on-girl porn, no pesky d*cks getting in the way, but as more and more women become lesbians it gets more and more difficult for non-Alpha men to find women.

this is a good example of why lesbians and gay men should not be lumped together. they are two distinct species. women may choose to "identify" themselves as lesbian, possibly until the right man comes along (or vice versa). gay men, on the other hand (unless they allow themselves to be forced by social/family pressures to appear to be with a woman) are completely "oriented", sexually and romantically, toward other men..period. the existence of true 'bisexuals' is highly debatable.

But really the original theory on homosexuality is the most sensible - it is a psychological malady with roots in childhood trauma.

This is too dumb to respond to on substantive grounds, but I will note that I get the distinct impression that the fight for gay marriage is being helped by the extremists who are opposed to gay marriage who make such obviously outlandish arguments.

Some sort of civil union compromise might have been possible at some point as a way for the more moderate anti-gay forces to prevent full marriage equality from happening if they could have kept the anti-gay whack-jobs tucked out of sight, but now it's obvious that we are going to have gay marriage in all fifty states, it's just a matter of time.

This is too dumb to respond to on substantive grounds, but I will note that I get the distinct impression that the fight for gay marriage is being helped by the extremists who are opposed to gay marriage who make such obviously outlandish arguments.

-----------

No, what you really mean is you have no argument on substantive grounds. Period.

I don't see why people don't see the obvious: Men and women experience gayness differently.

Just about every bi man turns out gay in the end. Just about every bi girl turns out straight in the end. You never hear of the "LUG" phenomenon (lesbian until graduation) in men but it is very common in high school and college women. You never hear of men being gay for political reasons, or because the opposite sex treated them badly, but women are gay for those exact stated reasons all the time. The horniest male would never kiss or fondle another male for the sole purpose of getting the attention of females, but the opposite happens all the time (it is the core of the Girls Gone Wild phenomenon).

So this is what is confusing everyone: Male gayness is primarily not a choice, but female gayness primarily is. It is such a simple answer staring everyone in the face but everyone refuses to see it because they are too emotionally and politically tied to the answer being one way or the other for both sexes.

The whole "choice" question on the left concerning gay identity stems from the fact that most "queer theorists" are rooted in postmodernism and poststructuralism, and so they favor philosophical approaches which denounce or deny anything which can be seen as "essentializing." Naturally, then, gay identity poses a problem because if it is biological, then it is in some way essential or determinative, and their philosophical instinct is to reject that possibility. That's why they embrace the term "queer" because it's a way of embracing a kind of rebellion.

But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met (her fiance) Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt..

"I wish that for just one timeYou could stand inside my shoesAnd just for that one momentI could be you"

So this is what is confusing everyone: Male gayness is primarily not a choice, but female gayness primarily is. It is such a simple answer staring everyone in the face but everyone refuses to see it because they are too emotionally and politically tied to the answer being one way or the other for both sexes.

The whole "choice" question on the left concerning gay identity stems from the fact that most "queer theorists" are rooted in postmodernism and poststructuralism, and so they favor philosophical approaches which denounce or deny anything which can be seen as "essentializing." Naturally, then, gay identity poses a problem because if it is biological, then it is in some way essential or determinative, and their philosophical instinct is to reject that possibility.

Young Hegelian: I read a lot of it in grad. school, too, but haven't bothered with it in more than fourteen years now, and don't miss it. So my excuse--such as it is--is that I'm seriously out of practice in that regard.

Yashu did cite Judith Butler, though, who is famous for all sorts of gender bending anyway. And your first response to my comment reminded me of Marjorie Garber's book on Bisexuality. While Garber wasn't the unreadable postmodernist type, the book was certainly informed by a lot of the standard premises of that discourse.

Nixon stirred the identity politics pot further when she explained in a follow-up interview with The Daily Beast this week that she purposefully rejected identifying herself as bisexual even though her history suggested it was an accurate term.

"I don't pull out the "bisexual" word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals," she said. "But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met (her fiance) Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt."

If only we lived in world where collectivist politics didn't rule the debate and the reality. But they do, socially and economically, and they especially do among activist--a.k.a base-- conservatives and progressives alike.

For my part, I now think President Obama is going to win re-election (though without my vote). And, at this point, I think it's extremely unlikely that the president elected in November 2016 will be particularly different from Obama.

el polacko said...this is a good example of why lesbians and gay men should not be lumped together. they are two distinct species.

Haz said: So what to believe? I don't think gay and lesbian people can be lumped into one category.

We used to have just two genders. I hope we don't need four now. Individuality is fine but it really doesn't fit well with these austere times. OTOH, if we could just stop sexualizing gender we'd be better off.

Observe also the reaction to the 9/11 attacks.. where the value of our security (ratified by an expansive never again/never forget) on one hand.. comes into conflict with some of some of our most cherished freedoms.. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..

How can activist tell Nixon that her right to express her opinion, about herself no less, should be abrogated or muted on account of a possible yet to be cognisable victim.

I dont know.. alls I know is these things should be argued and debated passionately but civilly.

The one problem with the biology argument is that, if it's not true - and I don't think it is for most cases, then it's psychological.

That makes it no less a choice than if it were biological, but it would explain how some homosexuals, Evelyn Waugh comes to mind, are "cured". Like, however, depression or other identifiable mental conditions, the cure is long, difficult, and anything but sure-fire (at least for now).

What's going to be interesting to watch is if Ms Nixon gets the Clarence Thomas/Sarah Palin treatment by "queers"* like Hatman (or Lefties, in general) for speaking the unspeakable.

el polacko said...

this is a good example of why lesbians and gay men should not be lumped together.

Yes, but that's sexist. Don't you know men and women are the same?

* Last I heard saying queer was like using Zero's middle name. Outsiders aren't allowed to use it

I've told you, and told you, and told you, there was a bigger conversation to be had here than you or any other gay supporters - be they gay or not - were willing to have. An honest conversation. Especially with Real Men™, who won't give their bullshit the time of day (TMR). Gays think it's better to engage someone like you, or Cynthia Nixon, who they think they can push around, or influence to change her mind - and, thus, change reality.

Which, of course, can't be changed.

The true male point of view, and way of addressing it, has value - as long as they are good. And, as such, real men don't deserve what they get in return, which is lies (depravity). The rest wait until they think it's safe to say something, which isn't bravery at all. (Cynthia Nixon is on a professional upswing through her portrayal of a cancer patient.) Truth-tellers know it's never safe.

Real men are born heathens - no need for ostentatious displays - so, being stuck with the rest of these confused ninnies, who - right or wrong - will ALWAYS fight back, "cruel to be kind" is the only way forward available. We can't be bothered if they like it or not, but to state the obvious as honestly, and forcefully, as humanly possible and hope - at whatever range of comprehension they possess - some of these other animals will understand:

Cynthia Nixon should be in trouble for her wooden performance in Wit. But in the theater gays and lesbians are held to a different standard. Like no standard at all. Yes, it's good to be more than equal.

and it is going to be used when some kid comes out and their parents force ??? Why ? if she a PHD from Harvard or Yale? she is only a third class actress who was in the right place at the right time.So who cares about what she says.many commenters here agree wrongly with her. parents wont say some dud at althouse says...

If sexual orientation is innate (which is the way the scientific evidence seems to be pointing) then the far more likely scenario is that homosexuality will be prevented rather than cured. If/when it can be detected before birth some people will consider "gay fetuses" defective and abort them. (It will be interesting to see how these event affect those whose attitudes toward both homosexuality and abortion are in conflict over this situation. Abortion for sex selection is already generating some of this type of cognitive dissonance.) Of course we can look farther into the future when we all get to choose the characteristics of our offspring from a menu. How many people will check the gay box.

One of my ex-wife's sisters recently declared her gayness, after 30 plus years of marriage. She is a New Ager Crack would love, dream catchers, crystals, etc.

She has one of those timer genes where your straight for a certain period of time, and then the timer goes off and you become gay. Genetics are truly fascinating. (Fortunately, she never had any kids.)

Some people are exclusively heterosexual throughout their lives, and some are exclusively homosexual. Some are truly bisexual and some try a little of one type of sexual behavior and spend most of their time with another. Some switch, maybe more than once.

An observer with no political axe to grind would conclude that given the spectrum of behavior, their might be a spectrum of underlying causes for the behavior.

It's about emotions and feelings and personal well being. The only thing that bothers me about it is the idea that the government should steer people in certain directions for the "well being" of society. As if the government doesn't have its hands full trying to solve all the other problems it has taken on.

Lefty identity politics always end with the same argument: whatever is good for their politics is the mantra and anyone unwilling to pledge allegiance is a bigot. The fact that the mantra is simultaneously contradictory for different purposes doesn't bother them a bit even though it proves them dishonest idiots to anyone with even a basic level of integrity.

A lovely young woman I know, deeply involved in the LGBT community at her college, surprised many of her friends by marrying the father of their 6-month-old son yesterday. Everyone is so happy for them, at least in public. I can't help but wonder if her gay friends feel betrayed. She had insisted she was a lesbian before she met her now-husband.

I've seen this particular story play out a half dozen times now. I think some people are attracted to certain individuals, and they don't care so much about the plumbing.

Nature vs nurture. I've gradually come to view this dichotomy as being not all that helpful. If gayness was only biological, one would expect far more gays and "gayness" would be observable in some sort of bell curve fashion.

Now, I wonder if there is some sort of biological propensity towards gayness that only becomes active when some behavioral "switch" is activated.

It could be that for most people, the behavioral switch is so hard to flip that most people remain in the default, i.e., heterosexual orientation. In others, the behavioral switch is more easily flipped or was flipped to begin with.

Joan--the scenario you describe is pretty much the plot of the movie Kissing Jessica Stein, which was a pretty good movie, though it's more likely to be appreciated by those who are comfortable seeing sexuality as fluid rather than fixed.

Gay marriage has even been rejected in those bastions of conservatism Maine & California. ( In all 31 states, now including Maine, where the issue has been put to a popular vote, gay marriage has lost.)

"Because gay people have gay children and straight people have straight children?"

This is a very good question, but not because anyone has an answer. The entire debate is fraught with ignorance as to real numbers. How many gays are there? How many gays enter into long term relationships? How many married gays ever bother to have children? Would the number of gay parents grow if gay marriage became widely acceptable? Why?

In most MSM articles, the answers are never given or even addressed, except when the the response is, "Numbers don't matter when the question deals with civil rights."

But how can anyone discuss societal impacts without numbers? We got the same fuzzy number treatment during the AIDS debates, to nobody's benefit.

It wasn't just the relative difference in our ages and incomes. I felt that what really put finis on my relationship with the Olsen twins was society's disapproval of bigamy and incest. It was probably best that we broke up, but I would welcome a society where people like the Olsen twins and myself could freely acknowledge our love and celebrate it with marriage.

21.6% of lesbian homes and 5.2% of male gay homes have children present. About 150,000 same sex couples were raising about 250,000 kids in 2000. (Probably more now.) 8-10 million or 8-13 million children, according to who's counting, are being raised by gay parents. Apparently, most gay parents stay married to their hetero partners. One might project that most of those are lesbians.

From another source, 6% of same sex couples adopt. About 65,000 kids have been adopted to same sex couples, the majority from overseas.

"'8-10 million or 8-13 million children, according to who's counting, are being raised by gay parents'That probably off by only an order of magnitude or two."

Another source said 6-14 million. Methodology not explained. Out of 75.6 million children in the US. So, anywhere from 8% - 18.5% of all US children have at least one gay parent. Seems rather high unless gays tend to have much larger families than straights.

The left is not numerate and thus pulls numbers out of the air to support their various positions. Because they are innumerate they do not know how to plausibly use fake numbers. Thus their high speed train construction budgets are laughably low, their gay parent numbers ridiculously high, their understanding of business fundamentally nil thus resulting in preposterous claims to their favor. It is discouraging on so many fronts.

If gays are 3-5% of the population, then one would expect somewhere between 2.27 million and 3.8 million children have at least one gay parent. Not an order of magnitude off, but at least one or two standard deviations off. (No puns, please.)

At any rate, the number of kids being raised by same sex couples (250,000 in 2000) is a tiny percentage of kids in the US. Assuming a huge increase to 500,000children today, that is less than .7% of all kids. Which is probably why most stories rely on individual anecdotal accounts about their experiences. You can find them, but they aren't very common on the ground.

For me, this has little to do with actual sexual orientation, but with avoiding being held accountable for chosen behavior by claiming it isn't--that it was predestined. They don't want their aberrant behavior (note the word), whatever it is, to be anything resembling a personal choice.

This cuts across all cultural lines.

I have seen very religious people treat their families, especially spouses, like shit using the same basic excuse--"it's who I am."

All I know is, after all the squares went home to have missionary sex, every gay gathering I've ever attended became that scene in The Ten Commandments where everyone started frolicking around the golden calf, mixed with Eyes Wide Shut. They mocked conventional society, from top-to-bottom, and declared they were the real power running society - and it showed, too:

During the day, if you were "in," doors magically flew open that were closed before (including security check points and the like) free food was had at restaurants, and - because many in the scene were powerful people who hung on the DL with tattooed and horned types - all kinds of connections were cemented, to make things happen, that otherwise wouldn't.

My point is, subversion is at the heart of the "movement" (what do you think Gwyneth Paltrow's nickname "GOOP" really stands for?) and, unless you understand it, stuff like The War On Christmas seems frivolous or makes little sense.

I think that sums it up. Kinsey might've been largely full of shit, but there's something to the idea of a Kinsey scale-- i.e. a spectrum of congenital dispositions in conjunction with cultural influences & individual choices.

IMO for sure, there's a biological basis (in many cases-- especially among gay men in the modern world). But like all things human, the nature/ culture dichotomy gets complicated; the historical record suffices to show this. Look at Greco-Roman society, where male-male erotic desire in some form was normalized (older-younger, mentor-student, whatever).

I know there's a commenter here who occasionally fulminates against Foucault, and I've never gotten around to replying. IMO there's a lot of good stuff in Foucault (along with a lot of bullshit-- as with any great theorist or philosopher). The mistake is to take Foucault's historical/ genealogical analyses-- which are meant to be descriptive-- for prescriptive. Just because Foucault points out that e.g. the Medieval period didn't make a big deal about certain things we find shocking (pedophilia or rape or whatever) doesn't mean he's advocating these things.

Or, better put (since there is some prescriptivism in Foucault I wouldn't want subscribe to): separate the descriptive value of his historical analyses from any of his prescriptive or political advocacy. The former might be illuminating (about the constants & variabilities of human nature, the vagaries of culture & ethical mores), even if you reject the latter.

I had a friend that died today. He was a gay guy, with a really great smile, who (before I knew him) used to let people worship him as a voodoo priest. When my marriage crumbled, and I first discovered how deep my ex, Karine Anne Brunck, was into NewAge, he immediately came over and told me these incredible stories of all the silly people that would follow him. How they'd bring him gifts, money, have sex with him - anything - so they could be in his favor. He told me my ex was "just one of those people" who's too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, real and unreal. A functional zombie. He joked that, if I asked him how to fake levitation, none of this would've happened. He made me laugh somehow, when in all that horror, I never would've thought it was possible.

And now here I am today, with his death all around, thinking he's still being funny:

Reminding me that, since the hypocrites of decency always reveal themselves, it's only the true con men who are really any good.

Boy, what a "hater," huh? Like misogyny, I don't think these words mean what you think they mean,...

1990 is way too late for that observation. You must mean 1980. Because biology versus choice was forced on the gay community by the AIDS epidemic which began in 1981. Before that time you would get slammed for suggesting that homosexuality was inbred, because it was considered a matter of individual freedom and human rights until AIDS at which point the strategical decision was made to reverse this stance and claim it a matter of biology so that no gay person could be accused of spreading a deadly disease by choice.

I remember discussing the biological basis for homosexuality (relating to intrauterine hormone surges) that was being investigated at the time to a liberal friend who nearly threw me out of her apartment and openly ridiculed me in front of a group for expressing such a heresy: that it was NOT a choice. Because indeed it was. Until that became a liability.

Initially, the homosexual community wanted to win over the scientific community which was convinced that homosexuality was a treatable disease with some psychological or biological basis. To do that, a group of mostly (secretly) gay men convinced the scientific community that it was a choice and that the choice was not harmful to the individual.

However, the larger society was primarily religious and had on the basis of their beliefs always believed that it was a choice. The homosexuality community didn't want just tolerance, but approval, so in the '80's they went about face and argued that it had a biological basis on the quasi-religious grounds that 'if God made me this way, I must be ok'.

In addition to the bad theology, there are three even bigger problems with this latest political correct convention. First of all, it is a lie. Despite being one of the best funded and most high profile endeavors in genetic research, after 20 plus years of looking no 'gay gene' or conclusive genetic or biological markers have ever been found. In fact, if you've been following the latest papers, all this research to 'settle the question' is in fact settling the question in the opposite direction. Right now its estimated that _at most_ no more than 30% of homosexuality can be explained by any genetic or biological factor. That's an upper bound. The actual number is likely to turn out to be lower than that. Secondly, in thier earnestness to persuade the religious community they've forgotten their own history and why it was terribly important to persuade the scientific community in the first place. If homosexuality has a genetic or biological basis, then it is a disfunctional genetic or biological abnormality and a cure as such could probably be devised and probably _would_ be devised. This is a much more serious problem for anyone wanting homosexuality to be considered 'an acceptable alternative lifestyle' than the disapproval of a religious group.

A few years ago, a gay buddy and I went to a gay bar where the scene was suitably gay. So I posed the question to him, 'Did he see anything queer there.' I knew the answer as everything seemed quite normal... for a gay bar.

But as for me, I would find a world without homosexuality, and without what one might call gay or queer culture (i.e. the many different facets & strands of it intertwined in culture as a whole) a much poorer place.

As a devout follower of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, I am compelled to believe that homosexuality is a choice. If it was genetic, it would last all of one generation. From a genetic perspective, homosexuality is akin to removing yourself from the gene pool, its genetic suicide.

That said, as a libertarian, I like the idea of homosexuality being a freely chosen lifestyle. The idea of there being a genetic marker, brings up all sorts of uncomfortable possibilities, buttressed by historical archive.

I suspect sexuality can be described as a line where most people are at one end and just like the opposite sex. Then a percentage of what's left is at the other end of the line and just like the same sex. The what's left between those two percentages are scattered along that line and like both, or strongly prefer one or the other but can also like the opposing. To place everyone either at one end or the other doesn't work.

There is a small possibility that you might be taken more serious if you bothered to actually refute an argument rather than just insult someone. Who's mind do you think will be changed with that carefully crafted statement? The guy will say, "well, wait. Apparently I may be too dumb to realized how dumb my statement is. That Andy has made me think more about it. Even though the man can't figure out how to wear a hat, his logic is unmistakeably correct."

SPImmortal, the genetics got pushed to make homosexuality another "race", like black, and thus fall under the 14th Amendment.

As Bob_R said, if gay was confirmed as mostly genetic, there would be an in-home gene test kit for it 90 seconds later, and abortion clinics and medical sterilization docs would do a land office business shortly. That's here in the US; overseas in the Dar al Islam, it would happen even faster.

We won't even discuss the probability that some bright spark would come up with an actual "gay plague" in a lab somewhere; genetically targeted virii are not in the realm of science fiction these days....

Is homosexuality a choice? No surprise that liberals and conservatives disagree.

But aside from political calculations, there is another reason for the disagreement: the word "choice" itself.

Liberals use "choice" to mean control. If something is a choice, liberals assert, then you have complete, conscious control of all options.

Conservatives use "choice" to mean agency, influence, or liberty...as in, no one chooses to get in a car accident, but car accidents often happen when people choose to drive in an unsafe manner.

Myself, I prefer the latter definition, because there are very few things in life that you have complete conscious control of all options. And while many things happen that we do not consciously choose, we do choose how we respond.

So everyone has urges. Is someone a homosexual for a single homosexual thought? What identifies a homosexual? Their taste in shoes? Of course not. It is the behavior that makes a homosexual.

As such, you may not have control of your urges or desires, but you do have choices of what to do about it.

Myself, homosexuality seems closest to a fetish...an acquired dependence that can only be changed through a sincere desire to change, commitment to change, and consistent follow through.

"By the way, I vividly remember back around 1990, the progressive gay-rights-type people I knew were intent upon portraying sexual orientation as a choice. "

Yeah, and I remember the gay-rights-type people insisting marriage was for weak, stupid breeders who weren't enlightened and confident enough to love without a government stamp of approval, like gays were.

Obviously before they realized marriage could get them free insurance, pensions, etc.

It's interesting to me that rarely does a discussion on nature vs nurture orientation delve into the the rate of homosexual behavior in prisons. Strictly anecdotally and in a potentially non parallel context , I have been told by caregivers of people with developmental disabilities that there is often a similar fluidity of sexuality. And there are instances of uninformed children expressing hetero attraction while assuming both sexes have the same equipment in the non-visible zone below the waist. At some point, new information comes in and sexuality seems to be able to incorporate that external influence...almost always..but not always towards heterosexuality. I'm not sure what to make of all that..but cereberally, it casts at least some less discussed questions about the Nature vs Nurture issue. In terms of gay marriage rights, I find it interesting that the partner hospital visit scenario is invoked far more often than the issue of various financial benefits. Assigning health care power of attorney should be an easy step to remedy the former.

This entire conversation reminds me of an experience I had some years ago while substitute teaching in a high school. Out of nowhere a student in a history or English class asked me if I thought homosexuality was the result of biology or a choice?

I asked him if he ever felt sexually attracted to anyone and if that attraction happened because he "choose to be attracted" or it just happened for reasons he could not explain?

After class I went to the school office and suggested that they invite some gay speakers to the school to discuss the issue with the students since it was a matter of interest. Several years later the school did just that.

Finally, I would add that I have known some people who have been gay all their lives and some people who have been with partners of the same sex and later with opposite sex. I would not call them bisexual as that implies they are having these relationships simultaneously. I believe it would be more accurate to say they were at one time homosexual and at another time heterosexual. Why is that so horrible??? I don't know. I have also met some people who are truly bisexual in the sense that they have both gay and straight relationships going on at the same time.

I have also known some women who claim to be bisexual, but are actually just unable to find a good heterosexual relationship. They've typically had a string of bad relationships with men and say they want to try women for a change, as if they might be lesbians... They aren't actually lesbians, they are simply women who are emotionally needy and have to have a romantic/sexual partner in their lives. They are bad news. These are the flirty women guys see at bars -- it's just a come on, literally, because they know guys love it.

These are real life experiences. Based on my experience I would say that when Cynthia Nixon says homosexuality is a choice what she means is that she has chosen to fully be with a woman she loves.

Hmm..as a sub in an English or history class, maybe passing on that question would be more appropriate...matter of interest or not. I wonder what the content was of the speakers who subsequently came to the school.

I mean..it's an area open to many interpretations..many probably not to the liking of some parents.

For example, never heard of this definition before "I would not call them bisexual as that implies they are having these relationships simultaneously.

As an "openly gay" dude, there is something deeply entertaining about being the subject of such intense interest.

Do I exist? If I exist, how did I come into existence? Is my existence a good thing, tremendously wicked, or an indifference?

Ultimately, this is all prelude to decide one thing: the position of ones' eyebrows. Are we to be scowled at, or no? In a free nation with the rule of law, that's about all that's available.

For my part, it appears to me that I exist. I'm quite happy existing in the way that I do (having been the same person this whole time, and observing as much misery, and joy, among hetero's as other types), and am thoroughly enjoying the attention. Analyze away!

It brings to mind my reaction to Lady Gaga's Born That Way song; she's an excellent musician (and I do like her music), but she apparently flunked Biology. There seems to be a theme that homosexuals are born, not made. When I've advanced the statement that such a thing has NOT in fact been proven, I'm challenged with "Well, did you choose to be straight?" as if heterosexuality and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin and must have similar origins.

Presuming that this is not a tongue-in-cheek comment, please cite any actual studies showing this, or any organization stating this is true as a matter of science (as opposed to politics) - in other words, by some group comprised of experts in genetics.

Ms. Nixon foolishly thinks she gets to define herself, be autonomous. That's Not Allowed on the Liberal Plantation, Miz Nixon. (It won't stop her from sending her check in to OFA, though, like a good little tool.)